1080 vs 720 (closed)

[Ken Hodson]

If you want it to last 10+ years and you approach things from a film perspective it would have to be the HD100. Especially being that in 2-3 years you will be able to pull uncompressed onto a cheap portable capture device that will probably mount onto the cam(yes you can do it now but it ain't cheap or small!).
And want interchangeable lens.
HD is here. Only chip size and compression will change in the next decade. If you go uncompressed you are right up there now!

[Leo Pepingco]

And skip homework I did...!

Thanks Ken... I mean, Mr Hodson.

Yea, I guess I'm pretty young. And it sounds stupid to be a company of only one, and wanting to spend his entire lifesavings on something that, by all intents in purposes, wont make money back until 2-3 years after purchase.

I just want in on the industry now. I have no backup and no funding other than my drive and my education. And I know its stupid. But I have a few friends who are willing to help. All I need now is a cam, a good mic, and lots and lots of planning.

If what you say is true, then the HD-100 is for me. (The HD101E has recently been reccomended over the 100.) I really want to make docos that is not only worthy of television, but I want them able to be blown up and put on screens. Then I would know that I am ready for the big task of making a film. And by then, have some cash to back myself up.

Mmn.... I read up on unconpressed HDV footage, makes me want to drool. I think I'll get it.... Maybe sometime next month.

Fingers crossed, heres to hoping... See ya at the... umm.... I'll be the fan in the red shirt screamming out "have my baby" at the Oscars... Lol.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

There are two flavors of HDV. Each one is as "real" as the other. There's the JVC flavor, which is 720p, and the Sony flavor which is 1080i. And Ken is quite right, the primary difference between the two is progressive vs. interlace.

Where's the best to big screen? Maybe 1080i specially if progressive converted because it will have more resolution or isn't it so?

[Leo Pepingco]

I never really liked de-interlacing anything... I've seen many great shoots in university that just crumpled over after they blew up a de-interlaced production on the Lecture screen. (about half the size of a cinema screen lengthways)

In the replies I've recived in recnt days, I went away and did some heavy homework and understood why Progressive HDV is 720. Its made for film conversion and to make video look like film. (Among more prominent reasons why its 720.) Having said that, yes there is more resolution, but I tend to tell myself, thats more space on the screen you have to take care of. One small mistake, one small artifact, one lighting error or frame size misgudge and everything goes wonky. But thats me... And maybe my fears are unfounded.

Using the replies I've gotten from this forum and my home forum in Australia, anything progressive is great to blow up. And since Sony, canon, sharp and JVC agreed for a 1080i and 720p formats, I think that 1080p is a long way off from here. And I think broadcasters would be hard pressed to accept 1080p without having to interlace them themselves... So I've heard.

[Glenn Chan]

In case anyone is wondering, here is why EBU favored 720p over 1080i (for broadcast):

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/...editorial.html

On the capture side, they favor the highest quality going in (1080p).

[Tim Holtermann]

The other important factor to consider on 1080 cameras is how are they getting it? Are they really 1080 cameras if they record the image in a lower format and the upsample later? Are you getting true resolution? No you are not. Often times you are better with a true 720p image upped to 1080.

Look at what the various cameras do to the image before delivering it.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

This is very quickly turning into exactly what we don't do on DVInfo.net: this isn't the place to debate whether 720 is better than 1080. Let's not have to lock or remove this thread, K guys?

[Tim Holtermann]

The original question of this thread was valid but confused. You can't have a basic 101 talk about 720 vs 1080 without these types of discussions. It seemed to me that the original question related to which codec to use as it was a determing factor on which camera to buy.

I remember when I first started looking into HD and the various specs and thought, oh boy here we go again, standards all over the place. SMTP lists 720p as true HD. Simple. Now when delivering 1080 material to a broadcast company for air or a stock footage company for sale who knows how this oringial materal was acquired. Just because you hand them a 1080 tape doesn't mean that they are getting full resolution 1080. In fact in most cases it's not true 1080 at full res. Is the Z1 really 1080 if it doesn't record this to tape but downsamples? Why this is important to this discussion is because someone will base their decision to buy a camera based on specs. Well specs are not everything and sometimes you need to weed through the various "tricks" used to achieve HD recording.

[David Heath]

One thing worth mentioning is that in all this "1080 v 720" talk, that's leaving aside the other attributes of the systems. The excellent EBU link earlier referenced also leaves out one option which seems to be becoming increasingly popular since it was written - 1080p/25 production, then recorded and transmitted interlaced for compatability, when it is more correctly termed (I believe) 1080psf/25 - "progressive, segmented field".

That was little considered earlier, because of the temporal 'jerkiness', but aesthetically it seems to be proving increasingly popular now for drama etc - considered "film look". As the EBU reference makes clear, 1080 is seen as better than 720 in principle, but progressive is seen as better than interlace. In the future, there's little doubt that other than 1080p/50 should be the ultimate goal, at least for production, the debate is how to proceed in the meantime.

One factor becoming increasingly relevant is that average home screen sizes are becoming much larger than was envisaged only a couple of years ago, and many of the research assumptions that led to the belief that 720 would be good enough are being questioned. 1080psf/25 for drama etc, and 1080i/25 for sport etc may be seen as a valid best interim solution until 1080p/50 becomes viable.

[Graham Hickling]

> 1080i/25 for sport

That EBU editorial does a "fudge" that I see happening all the time ... not being clear about what framerate is being referred to. The guy said "progressive has better motion rendition that interlaced". While that will be true for 720p50 versus 1080i25, clearly it's not so for 720p30, 720p25 or 720p24, which the people who visit this forum are often producing.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Tim Holtermann

I remember when I first started looking into HD and the various specs and thought, oh boy here we go again, standards all over the place. SMTP lists 720p as true HD. Simple. Now when delivering 1080 material to a broadcast company for air or a stock footage company for sale who knows how this oringial materal was acquired. Just because you hand them a 1080 tape doesn't mean that they are getting full resolution 1080. In fact in most cases it's not true 1080 at full res. Is the Z1 really 1080 if it doesn't record this to tape but downsamples? Why this is important to this discussion is because someone will base their decision to buy a camera based on specs. Well specs are not everything and sometimes you need to weed through the various "tricks" used to achieve HD recording.

Tim,
As Chris said, (owner of this site) this is not a thread to debate which is better, 720p or 1080. You yourself, have some significant misunderstandings of 720p vs 1080. To suggest that the Z1 isn't ATSC (Not SMPTE) compliant, or "True HD" where 720p is compliant and "true HD" shows a substantial ignorance to every HD camcorder out there, not just HDV camcorders. The z1 doesn't downsample, it pixel shifts. What camcorder out there has a 1920 x 1080 sensor block? Could you direct me to one, save it be for a couple in the $150k plus category?

[Joe Carney]

Leo, here is a suggestion....
Get both the jvc hd100 for narrative feature work and the Sony HC1 for doc work. Together they are under $8K out of the box from reputable dealers (like the ones supporting dvinfo). Spot has done reviews on the single cmos chip Sonys and gives them a thumbs up for price/performance ratio. Check out the HC1/A1 forum and ask more questions. I think you would be very happy with one of them as your official 'doc' camera. Both the jvc and the Sony record to affordable miniDV tape, so if you budget is stressed you can get by without a deck for awhile.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

[Evan C. King]

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

Leo, here is a suggestion....
Get both the jvc hd100 for narrative feature work and the Sony HC1 for doc work. Together they are under $8K out of the box from reputable dealers (like the ones supporting dvinfo). Spot has done reviews on the single cmos chip Sonys and gives them a thumbs up for price/performance ratio. Check out the HC1/A1 forum and ask more questions. I think you would be very happy with one of them as your official 'doc' camera. Both the jvc and the Sony record to affordable miniDV tape, so if you budget is stressed you can get by without a deck for awhile.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

That sounds like a really solid idea. But I still think you should rent a z1 and shoot 50i and try the converting everyone is talking about. You might be surprised.

[David Kennett]

I appreciate Chris' efforts to keep the 720p vs 1080i debate out of a camera selection forum. It seems to me though, that since the manufacturers seem to align themselves with a particular format, understanding the relative merits of each is one of the most important considerations.

I think I have a "fair and balanced" understanding of the two formats, and in the past I understood why some chose either one over the other. Recent events, however, force me to conclude that interlaced scanning is of diminishing value.

To summarize my logic (from other posts):

1. Interlaced scanning can only be displayed (without conversion) on a CRT.
2. ALL new display technologies are progressive.
3. conversion ALWAYS degrades.
4. CRTs will be gone in a few years.
5. Why create something which cannot be displayed without conversion.

You may see it otherwise. This is just the way I see it.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by David Kennett

I appreciate Chris' efforts to keep the 720p vs 1080i debate out of a camera selection forum. It seems to me though, that since the manufacturers seem to align themselves with a particular format, understanding the relative merits of each is one of the most important considerations.

I think I have a "fair and balanced" understanding of the two formats, and in the past I understood why some chose either one over the other. Recent events, however, force me to conclude that interlaced scanning is of diminishing value.

To summarize my logic (from other posts):

1. Interlaced scanning can only be displayed (without conversion) on a CRT.
2. ALL new display technologies are progressive.
3. conversion ALWAYS degrades.
4. CRTs will be gone in a few years.
5. Why create something which cannot be displayed without conversion.

You may see it otherwise. This is just the way I see it.

1. Interlaced at the 50i/60 framerate offers sharper pictures in high motion, doesn't suffer from stutter like 24, 25, or 30p, and downconverts very well to those formats.
2. All displays manufactured since January 05 are 1080, and so why shoot in a smaller resolution than native to the display?
3. 720p demonstrates artifacts on a display larger than 46"
4. Progressive displays display interlaced footage as well, and most displays have deinterlacing, so while it indeed has negative effect on the image to deinterlace, it's more semantic than realistic.
5. I agree with your point. Why display something that cannot be displayed without conversion. (720p also requires upconversion for any 1080 display)

Most of your points are non-issues. CRT technology is indeed going away. Progressive will indeed become the display and acquisition standard. Neither of the two preceding statements nullify nor diminish the value of interlaced at higher framerates.
Now, if you want to consider 25p vs 25i...then progressive wins by lengths. but 25p vs 50i, it's a debateable point.

Both formats have merit for acquisition and delivery. Both are viable choices. It's up to shooters whether they want sharper/faster images, or they want smoother pictures. Both have drawbacks, too.